Yes, it is. But it's quite a lot more exercise than most humans are going to engage in.
I spent a few years walking several hours a day. I was unemployed and homeless at the time.
It was very beneficial to my health, but I hesitate to "recommend" it because I know what most people will tell me: they can't spend that kind of time walking every day, even if it could potentially save their life.
It's incredibly distracting, I couldn't imagine trying to work on a treadmill, I can't even manage to play turn based RPGs on the treadmill on the lowest setting. The only treadmill activities that have worked for me are TV and podcasts.
I don't know how they can claim to make this comparison.
Do an image search for mouse skeleton and compare to dog skeleton.
These creatures are hyper specialised to run pretty much nonstop all day every day, as evidenced by the fact that lab mice will voluntarily run 10km when present with a mouse wheel and no prior training.
Human running is bound to be way more laborious.
The comparison is nonsense.
I agree with your broader point though.
Edit to add: My previous pup, a Border Collie x German Shorthaired Pointed, after only five introductory sessions, would voluntarily get on the treadmill we had set up for her.
There is something inherently different about these creatures. One of my pet theories of why they don't live as long is because they're brains are hardwired to make them act like they're on MDMA and amphetamine all the time.
You might find this interesting: most mammals have a maximum number of heartbeats of about 1 billion in their life and the smaller an animal, the faster their heart beats. So the faster the heart beats, the shorter their life is. Why this is a rule, I have no idea.
Humans are an exception to this with approximately 4 billion heartbeats possible in life.
It is only mentioned in the german Wikipedia [0] but not in the english.
I wonder how active a person would have to be over a life time compared to an inactive person to run out or heart beats and die before the inactive person succumbed to the maladies of the lazy.
While the pulse goes up during training, a well-trained athletes can have normal pulse rates that are far less than of untrained persons. Down to less than 50 bpm, so I wouldn't be afraid of them running out of heart beats.
It's my understanding that humans, being bipedal rather than quadrupedal, are more efficient runners[0]. Quadrupeds have the advantage over short distances [like dwarves, they are natural sprinters [1]], but their metabolism is not suited to endurance running. They lack sweat glands necessary to cool their bodies over long periods of exertion as well.
There are hypotheses of early humans hunting by purely chasing down their prey during the hottest part of the day and into hyperthermia.[2]
Is there any evidence to suggest that humans have ever preyed upon other apex predators?
I'm finding it hard to imagine humans would hunt down wild dogs / cats for food.
Additionally, if lab mice can voluntarily run 10km in an evening, doesn't that alone shoot holes in this theory? My understanding was the theory indicated humans could outrun grazing animals.
A quick search shows the Australian Kelpie can run 60km in a work day, and apparently the Australian Dingo has been know to travel 40km in a day.
Here's an article[1] about long distance runners having canine companions because their human friends couldn't keep up.
I wonder if someone has ever applied some of these studies (that sometimes show an increased lifespan from 30% to 60%) with the sole intent to obtain a super mouse with incredibly long lifespan and some other incredible characteristics.
In 2003, the organization was made public as the Methuselah Foundation at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Aging Association,[7] where they awarded the first Methuselah Mouse Prize to Andrej Bartke for his work on mice that lived the equivalent of 180 human years.
What is interesting is to see effect size. For example, exercise would produce huge effect in blood content that transports oxygen and relatively small effect on brain-derived neurotrophic factor. For humans BDNF measures in 39 nanogramms per millilitre [1] - it is highly dissolved. I seriously doubt that masspectrometry can handle this.
It's not a bad question. Does it have to be cardio? Isometric exercise? I've heard a lot of buzz about high-impact interval training; does that work? The questions do need answering, and though mice may not provide the full answer, they can still provide some information, and maybe enough for more research to be funded.
Not sure what the answer is to human medical testing and research since experimenting on humans is unethical. But mice shouldn't stand in for humans for human research since mice and humans are very different. I wonder how scientists in the future will look upon using mice for human medical research.
Let's not get carried away. There is plenty of scientific basis for testing on other mammals.
Hell, most of our knowledge of genetics comes from work done on fruit flies. Many key immune pathways like TLR (Toll-Like Receptors) would have come to our attention later if it wasn't for research in fruit flies. Obviously though, we have lots more in common with mice than with flies. Hence, it's worth it.
The problem you're describing has more to do with journalists over-hyping scientific results than the utility of said results.
They will probably think it's crude and ineffective, but it's the best they had at the time, and at least they weren't testing on humans ( at least cruel and/or unnecessary unimportant testing. The real travesty here is sensationalized headline and mis-directed reporting as a relevant correlation for humans. - It's all about the click/eyes, with no real substance for the reader
Loads of studies could be ethically performed with humans but it's more expensive to get test subjects. With mice you get a bunch of them and control what they do throughout their whole day without having to pay them anything.
As you said, not all studies can be done on humans, and some that could would be cost-prohibitive. My hope is that the ability to "print" organs will give us some increased ability, though we would not be able to see impacts on the entire body. Something that has positive effects on one's heart is no good if it also makes one's head explode.
There's still the concern of ethics with individual organs, though. How much of a person can you get without it becoming one? Is the idea of a "soul" reality? Tough questions.
For now, mouse studies are imperfect but necessary. Like it or not, they may allow research that is not feasible on humans in terms of safety or cost. We probably need to continue them, albeit taking them with a grain of salt. In mice is worth something, mostly getting the next set of research funded.
The refrain of "but this was done in mice" is the most predictable and least useful feedback you can give someone about their scientific results.
Instead of thinking of the problem, let's start thinking of solutions. For example, can we genetically humanize mice or other mammalian models to more closely resemble human?
Presumably you are not suggesting experimenting on humans to answer basic science questions?
What if alien abduction is just the government conducting human experiments in a way that no one will believe and does not cause people to think they are violating ethics?
Because, as simple as that advice might be, it's not all there is to it—and we don't live in a vacuum.
All things in moderation—including moderation.
My takeaway from many mental health discussions has been to:
* Look after your body/love yourself by being good to your body (this includes your takeaways)
* Try to see things from others' perspectives
* Relax and just have a damned beer if you want a damned beer. It's not all that heavy—it's life and life only.
(just an aside/tangent: I'm not for fasting in the way you've prescribed. From what I understand about it is that it won't hurt you, but it doesn't gain you anything either unless you're having difficulty managing your caloric budget)
Fasting has several benefits not related to caloric intake. It honestly has too many to list here, suffice to say that you should look into it a bit more.
I'd agree with all points, but you should really aim for a non-negotiable 8 hours of continuous sleep time. At 7 hours total sleep time, you're still in a sleep deficit as an adult. As we age, we get less and less stage 3 and 4 deep sleep which is responsible for clearing tau and beta amyloid through the meningeal lymphatic drainage system (and the glymphatic system). Alzeihmers and related dementia are disorders that arise due to impaired sleep, either through sleep deficits, or from disrupted sleep due to sleep apnea.
If you think about it, you can go without food and water for long-ish periods of time, but you can't go without sleep longer than a week or maybe two before you have irreparable damage. From an evolutionary perspective, this seems crazy since you're in your most vulnerable state and you're missing out on 8 hours of food foraging, or procreation. Obviously evolution has found that sleep is absolutely necessary for all living organisms. It's by far the most important aspect of living healthy lives, but it's the least appreciated in Western society.
For me, the primary reason to try fasting was to lose weight, or to say it it another way, to lose excess body fat. I was sold on trying fasting after I read Dr. Jason Fung's book called, "The Complete Guide to Fasting".
Over the years, I had my successes and failures trying to maintain a proper body weight with different diets. For me, I found that fasting was the easiest and simplest way to lose and now maintain my weight.
There is an accelerating level of evidence that fasting results in decreased rates of disease and increased longevity. In particular, it appears that having the body in a fat-burning mode during sleep facilitates more effective cellular maintenance and repair. Note that fasting is not calorie restriction. Calories can still be normal. The key point seems to be having long periods of no eating. There is even evidence that having just one meal a day (breakfast) might be the best schedule of all. I would not call any of it definitive, but I have found the studies more than compelling enough to change my own eating habits and encourage friends and family to do likewise.
I abide by most of those tenets..but, dammit...I'm gonna drink. I think the benefit I get from going out, having drinks, and socializing is worth more than the detriment to my physical being.
There are so many things that cause neurogenesis. It's not really that impressive unless the effect is strong. In that case though it could be dangerous or not optimal to intelligence.
52 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadI spent a few years walking several hours a day. I was unemployed and homeless at the time.
It was very beneficial to my health, but I hesitate to "recommend" it because I know what most people will tell me: they can't spend that kind of time walking every day, even if it could potentially save their life.
Do an image search for mouse skeleton and compare to dog skeleton.
These creatures are hyper specialised to run pretty much nonstop all day every day, as evidenced by the fact that lab mice will voluntarily run 10km when present with a mouse wheel and no prior training.
Human running is bound to be way more laborious.
The comparison is nonsense.
I agree with your broader point though.
Edit to add: My previous pup, a Border Collie x German Shorthaired Pointed, after only five introductory sessions, would voluntarily get on the treadmill we had set up for her.
There is something inherently different about these creatures. One of my pet theories of why they don't live as long is because they're brains are hardwired to make them act like they're on MDMA and amphetamine all the time.
Humans are an exception to this with approximately 4 billion heartbeats possible in life.
It is only mentioned in the german Wikipedia [0] but not in the english.
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzfrequenz#Herzfrequenz_bei_...
Edit: citations 5 and 6 might be a good starting point to delve into this.
I wonder how active a person would have to be over a life time compared to an inactive person to run out or heart beats and die before the inactive person succumbed to the maladies of the lazy.
It's my understanding that humans, being bipedal rather than quadrupedal, are more efficient runners[0]. Quadrupeds have the advantage over short distances [like dwarves, they are natural sprinters [1]], but their metabolism is not suited to endurance running. They lack sweat glands necessary to cool their bodies over long periods of exertion as well.
There are hypotheses of early humans hunting by purely chasing down their prey during the hottest part of the day and into hyperthermia.[2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4qZrPX60bw
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting#In_humans
I'm finding it hard to imagine humans would hunt down wild dogs / cats for food.
Additionally, if lab mice can voluntarily run 10km in an evening, doesn't that alone shoot holes in this theory? My understanding was the theory indicated humans could outrun grazing animals.
A quick search shows the Australian Kelpie can run 60km in a work day, and apparently the Australian Dingo has been know to travel 40km in a day.
Here's an article[1] about long distance runners having canine companions because their human friends couldn't keep up.
1. https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20836779/super-distan...
In 2003, the organization was made public as the Methuselah Foundation at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Aging Association,[7] where they awarded the first Methuselah Mouse Prize to Andrej Bartke for his work on mice that lived the equivalent of 180 human years.
[1] https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2013/901082/
Also, [2] - the BDNF level for sprint runners is more than 5 (five) times higher than of sedentiary people for Olympic team members.
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51658551_Increased_...
I guess the ability to run marathon every night can easily put one into Olympic team. ;)
Do we know if platelet 4 is only increased during running? What about weight lifting for example?
"Misleading mouse studies waste medical resources"
https://www.nature.com/news/misleading-mouse-studies-waste-m...
"Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746847/
"Drugs That Work In Mice Often Fail When Tried In People"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/10/5227754...
Not sure what the answer is to human medical testing and research since experimenting on humans is unethical. But mice shouldn't stand in for humans for human research since mice and humans are very different. I wonder how scientists in the future will look upon using mice for human medical research.
Also a nice source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902221/
Hell, most of our knowledge of genetics comes from work done on fruit flies. Many key immune pathways like TLR (Toll-Like Receptors) would have come to our attention later if it wasn't for research in fruit flies. Obviously though, we have lots more in common with mice than with flies. Hence, it's worth it.
The problem you're describing has more to do with journalists over-hyping scientific results than the utility of said results.
There's still the concern of ethics with individual organs, though. How much of a person can you get without it becoming one? Is the idea of a "soul" reality? Tough questions.
For now, mouse studies are imperfect but necessary. Like it or not, they may allow research that is not feasible on humans in terms of safety or cost. We probably need to continue them, albeit taking them with a grain of salt. In mice is worth something, mostly getting the next set of research funded.
Instead of thinking of the problem, let's start thinking of solutions. For example, can we genetically humanize mice or other mammalian models to more closely resemble human?
Presumably you are not suggesting experimenting on humans to answer basic science questions?
Pigs are already being genetically humanized in order to enable pig to human organ transplant:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5287079/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/scientists-grow-bull...
Eat real food (Not processed. (ex: eggs, fish, meat, fowl, vegetables, some fruit)) and not so much.
Don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.
Exercise daily (even if it's just a brisk walk for 30 mins).
Find time to meditate (rest your mind) for a few minutes a day, even day dreaming for 5-10 minutes is great.
Try to get a good nights sleep (approx 7 hours for an adult).
Try to Fast at least 12-16 hours a day (typically over night while you sleep, 6 pm to 10 am).
Seems like it should be easy but somehow we still make it complicated.
All things in moderation—including moderation.
My takeaway from many mental health discussions has been to:
* Look after your body/love yourself by being good to your body (this includes your takeaways)
* Try to see things from others' perspectives
* Relax and just have a damned beer if you want a damned beer. It's not all that heavy—it's life and life only.
(just an aside/tangent: I'm not for fasting in the way you've prescribed. From what I understand about it is that it won't hurt you, but it doesn't gain you anything either unless you're having difficulty managing your caloric budget)
If you think about it, you can go without food and water for long-ish periods of time, but you can't go without sleep longer than a week or maybe two before you have irreparable damage. From an evolutionary perspective, this seems crazy since you're in your most vulnerable state and you're missing out on 8 hours of food foraging, or procreation. Obviously evolution has found that sleep is absolutely necessary for all living organisms. It's by far the most important aspect of living healthy lives, but it's the least appreciated in Western society.
Over the years, I had my successes and failures trying to maintain a proper body weight with different diets. For me, I found that fasting was the easiest and simplest way to lose and now maintain my weight.
One thing I'd add is: avoid stress whenever possible. Learn perspective and don't sweat the small stuff.